qcd, jets and monte carlo techniquesbenasque.org/2018tae/talks_contr/104_lectures-1-and-2.pdf ·...

QCD, Jets and Monte Carlo techniquesMatteo Cacciari

LPTHE Paris and Université Paris Diderot

2018 TAE SchoolSeptember 2018, Benasque

Lecture 1 - Basics of QCDLecture 2 - Higher orders and Monte CarlosLecture 3 - Jets

Matteo Cacciari - LPTHE 2018 Taller de Altas Energías - Benasque

Strong interactions are complicated

2

“The correct theory [of strong interactions] will not be found in the next hundred years”

Freeman Dyson

“We are driven to the conclusion that the Hamiltonian method for strong interactions is dead and must be buried, although of

course with deserved honor”Lev Landau

We have come a long way towards disproving these predictions


A hadronic process

4

PDFs

Finalstate

Hard process

Initialstate


Bibliography

5

Books and “classics”...

• T. Muta, Foundations of Quantum Chromodynamics, World Scientific (1987)

• R.D. Field, Applications of perturbative QCD, Addison Wesley (1989)

• R.K. Ellis, W.J. Stirling and B.R. Webber, QCD and Collider Physics, Cambridge University Press (1996)

• G. Sterman, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Cambridge University Press (1993)

• Dokshitzer, Khoze, Muller, Troyan, Basics of perturbative QCD, http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~yuri

• Dissertori, Knowles, Schmelling, Quantum Chromodynamics: High Energy Experiments and Theory, Oxford Science Publications

• M.L. Mangano, Introduction to QCD, http://doc.cern.ch//archive/cernrep//1999/99-04/p53.pdf

• S. Catani,Introduction to QCD, CERN Summer School Lectures 1999

Great for specific examples of detailed calculations

Phenomenology-oriented

A QFT book, but applications tilted towards QCD

One of the most recent QCD books

For the brave ones

http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~yuri

http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~yuri

http://doc.cern.ch//archive/cernrep//1999/99-04/p53.pdf

http://doc.cern.ch//archive/cernrep//1999/99-04/p53.pdf


Bibliography

6

‣ Gavin Salam, ‣“Elements of QCD for Hadron Colliders”, http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1011.5131 ‣ http://gsalam.web.cern.ch/gsalam/teaching/PhD-courses.html

‣ Peter Skands‣2015 CERN-Fermilab School lectures, http://skands.physics.monash.edu/slides/

‣“Introduction to QCD”, http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1207.2389

‣ Fabio Maltoni‣“QCD and collider physics”, GGI lectures, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1CFLtxeIrQqvt-e8C5pwBKG4PljSyouP

...and recent lectures, slides and...videos


Outline of ‘Basics of QCD’

7

• strong interactions

• QCD lagrangian, colour, ghosts

• running coupling

• radiation

• calculations of observables

• theoretical uncertainties estimates

• power corrections

• infrared divergencies and IRC safety

• factorisation


QED v. QCD

8

QED has a wonderfully simple lagrangian, determined by local

gauge invariance

In the same spirit, we build QCD:a non abelian local gauge theory, based on SU(3)colour,

with 3 quarks (for each flavour) in the fundamental representation of the group and 8 gluons in the adjoint


What’s new?

9

1. Colour

quark-gluon interaction

colour matrix (generator of SU(3)colour) tAcb

Index of the adjoint representation

Indices of the fundamental representation


A fundamental colour relation

10

�ij�lk =1N

�ik�lj + 2 tAiktAlj


CF

11

Take i=j in

�ij�lk =1N

�ik�lj + 2 tAiktAlj

N�lk =1N

�lk + 2 tAiktAli

(tAtA)lk =12

�N � 1

N

⇥�lk =

N2 � 12N

�lk ⇥ CF �lk⇒

⇒This defines CF.

It is the Casimir of the fundamental representation of SU(N). What is it, physically?


CF

12

Gluon emission from a quark

ji

A

� tAji

Prob ~ 2�

jA

CF = (N2-1)/(2N) is therefore the ‘colour charge’ of a quark, i.e. its probability of emitting a gluon (except for the strong coupling, of course)

��

jA

tAijtAji =

�

A

(tAtA)ii = CF �ii


CA

13

Prob ~ 2�

BC

� CA�AAA B

C

Analogously, one can show that

CA = N is the ‘colour charge’ of a gluon, i.e. its probability of emitting a gluon (except for the strong coupling, of course).

It is also the Casimir of the adjoint representation.


What’s new?

14

2. Gauge bosons self couplings

In QCD the gluons interact among themselves:

Faµν = ∂µAaν�∂νAaµ+g f abcAbµAcν

New Feynman diagrams, in addition to the ‘standard’ QED-like ones

Direct consequence of non-abelianity of theory


What’s new?

15

3. Need for ghostsCancel unphysical degrees of freedom that would otherwise propagate in covariant gauges

✝ ✆✝ ✆✝ ✆✝ ✆✝ ✆✝ ✆✝ ✆✝ ✆✝ ✆✝ ✆✝ ✆✄$✄$✄$✄$✄$✄$✄$✄$✄$✄$✄$

A, α p B, β δAB

"

−gαβ + (1 − λ)pαpβ

p2 + iε

#

i

p2 + iεA p B✲ δAB i

p2 + iεa, i p b, j✲ δab i

(̸p − m + iε)ji

✞

✝

✞

✝

✞

✝

✞

✝

$✁

$✁

$✁B, β

A, α C, γ

q

rp•

✞✞✞✞✞✞

✂✁✂✁✂✁✂✁✂✁

$$$$$

☎☎

☎☎

☎☎

✂✁✂✁

✂✁✂✁

✂✁

✄✄

✄✄

✄

−gfABCh

gαβ (p − q)γ

+gβγ (q − r)α

+gγα (r − p)βi

(all momenta incoming)

✞✞✞✞✞✞✞✞✞✞✞✞

✂✁✂✁✂✁✂✁✂✁

$$$$$✂✁✂✁✂✁✂✁✂✁

$$$$$

☎☎

☎☎

☎☎

☎☎

☎☎

☎☎

✂✁✂✁

✂✁✂✁

✂✁

✄✄

✄✄

✄✂✁

✂✁✂✁

✂✁✂✁

✄✄

✄✄

✄A, α B, β

C, γ D, δ

•−ig2fXACfXBD (gαβgγδ − gαδgβγ)−ig2fXADfXBC (gαβgγδ − gαγgβδ)−ig2fXABfXCD (gαγgβδ − gαδgβγ)

A, α

B Cq

• gfABCqα

✒ ❘

✞

✝

✞

✝

✞

✝

✞

✝

$✁

$✁

$✁

A, α

b, i c, j

•

$$

$

$$✒❅

❅❅

❅❅❘−ig

`

tA´

cb(γα)ji

✞

✝

✞

✝

✞

✝

✞

✝

$✁

$✁

$✁

Table 1: Feynman rules for QCD in a covariant gauge.

6

ghost propagator

gluon-ghost vertex

gauge parameter


Ghosts: an example

16

gg → qq

In QED (i.e. replacing gluons with photons) we’d only have the second and third diagram, and we would sum over the

photon polarisations using

In QCD this would give the wrong result

We must use instead

k is a light-like vector, we can use (k0,0,0,-k0)

-


Ghosts: an example

17

An alternative approach is to include the ghosts in the calculation

+

Now we can safely use


QCD v. QED

18

Macroscopic differences

1. Confinement (probably -- no proof in QCD)We never observe the fundamental degrees of freedom (quarks and gluons). They are always confined into hadrons.

2. Asymptotic FeedomThe running coupling of the theory, αs, decreases at large energies


QCD radiation

19

In the soft limit , k << p1,2


QCD radiation

20

Squared amplitude, including phase space

Factorisation: Born × radiation

Changing variables (use energy of gluon E and

emission angle θ) we get for the radiation part


QCD emission probability

2114

ki

j

Singular in the soft (Ei,j→0) and in the collinear (θij→0) limits.Divergent upon integration.

The divergences can be cured by the addition of virtual corrections and/or if the definition of an observable is appropriate

θij


Altarelli-Parisi kernel

22

Using the variables E=(1-z)p and kt = Eθ we can rewrite

‘almost’ the Altarelli-Parisi splitting function Pqq

⇥ �sCF

⇥

11� z

dzdk2

t

k2t

d⇤

2⇥


Massive quarks

23

�sCF

⇥

11� z

dzdk2

t

k2t

d⇤

2⇥⇤ �sCF

⇥

11� z

dzdk2

t

k2t + (1� z)2m2

d⇤

2⇥+ · · ·

If the quark is massive the collinear singularity is screened


Angular ordering

24

The universal soft and collinear spectrum is not the only relevant characteristic of radiation. Angular ordering is another

Soft radiation emitted by a dipole is restricted to cones smaller than the angle of the dipole

Angular ordering means θ < θee


Coherence

25

Angular ordering is a manifestation of coherence, a phenomenon typical of gauge theories

Coherence leads to the Chudakov effect, suppression of soft bremsstrahlung from an e+e- pair.

“Quasi-classical” explanation: a soft photon cannot resolve a small-sized pair, and only sees its total electric charge (i.e. zero)

The phenomenon of coherence is preserved also in QCD. Soft guon radiation off a coloured pair can be described as being emitted

coherently by the colour charge of the parent of the pair

Drawing:P. Skands


e+e- → hadrons

26

Easiest higher order calculation in QCD. Calculate e+e- → qqbar+X in pQCD

αs0

αs1

Virtual

Born

Real


e+e- → hadrons

27

Real

Virtual

Sum

Real and virtual, separately divergent, ‘conspire’ to make total cross section finite

Regularize with dimensional regularization, expand in powers of ε


Scale dependence

28

Cn known up to C3

Cross section prediction varies with

renormalisation scale choice. Which value do

we pick for μ?

μ cannot be uniquely fixed. It can however be exploited to estimate the theoretical uncertainty of the calculation

In higher orders αs must be renormalised and aquires a scale dependence.


Theoretical uncertainties

29

dd lnµ2

lnσphys = 0We wrote before:

LO

NLO

Vary scales (around a physical one) to ESTIMATE the uncalculated higher order

}}

μ/Q

σ

i.e. independence of cross sections on artificial scales

Would only hold for all-orders calculations. In real life: residual dependence at one

order higher than the calculation


Non-perturbative contributions

30

�

q

�(e+e� � qq̄)We have calculated in perturbative QCD

However

The (small) difference is due to hadronisation corrections, and is of non-perturbative origin

We cannot calculate it in pQCD, but in some cases we can get an idea of its behaviour from the incompleteness of pQCD itself

�

q

�(e+e� � qq̄) ⇥= �(e+e� � hadrons)


Renormalons

31

Suppose we keep calculating to higher and higher orders:

2

! αn+1s βn0 f n!

This is big trouble: the series is not convergent, but only asymptotic

Evidence: try summing

R=∞

∑n=0

αn n!

(α= 0.1)

Factorial growth

n

R

5 10 15 20

1.12

1.13

1.14

1.15

1.16

Asymptotic value of the sum:

Rasymp ⌘nmin∑n=0

Rn

Rn

5 10 15 20

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

minimal termnmin ' 1/α


Power corrections

32

The renormalons signal the incompleteness of perturbative QCD

One can only define what the sum of a perturbative series is (like truncation at the minimal term)

The rest is a genuine ambiguity, to be eventually lifted by non-perturbative corrections: Rtrue = RpQCD+RNP

In QCD these non-perturbative corrections take the form of

power suppressed terms:The value of p depends on the process, and can

sometimes be predicted by studying the perturbative series: pQCD - NP physics bridge

RNP ⇠ exp✓� pβ0αs

◆= exp

✓�p ln Q

2

Λ2

◆=

✓Λ2

Q2

◆p


Cancellation of singularities

33

Block-Nordsieck theoremIR singularities cancel in sum over soft

unobserved photons in final state(formulated for massive fermions ⇒ no collinear divergences)

Kinoshita-Lee-Nauenberg theoremIR and collinear divergences cancel in sum over

degenerate initial and final states

These theorems suggest that the observable must be crafted in a proper way for the cancellation to take place


pQCD calculations: hadrons

34

Turn hadron production in e+e- collisions around: Drell-Yan.

Still easy in Parton Model: just a convolution of probabilities

Still, the picture holds at tree level (parton model) The parton distribution functions can be roughly

equated to those extracted from DIS

This isn’t anymore an inclusive process as far as hadrons are concerned: I find them in the initial state, I can’t ‘sum over all of them’

Sum over all final state hadrons


Challenges in QCD

35

The non-inclusiveness of a general strong interaction process is a threat to calculability.

What do we do if we can’t count on Bloch-Nordsieck and Kinoshita-Lee-Nauenberg?

‣Infrared and collinear safe observables‣less inclusive but still calculable in pQCD

‣Factorisation‣trade divergences for universal measurable quantities


IRC safety

36

A generic (not fully inclusive) observable O is infrared and collinear safe if

Infrared and collinear safety demands that, in the limit of a collinear splitting, or the emission of an infinitely soft particle,

the observable remain unchanged

O(X; p1, . . . , pn, pn+1 � 0) � O(X; p1, . . . , pn)O(X; p1, . . . , pn ⇥ pn+1) � O(X; p1, . . . , pn + pn+1)


IRC safety: proof

37

�tot =�

n|MB

n |2d�n +�

n|MV

n |2d�n +�

n+1|MR

n+1|2d�n+1

Cancellation of divergences

in total cross section (KLN)

A generic observable

In order to ensure the same cancellation existing in σtot, the definition of the observable must not affect the soft/collinear limit of the real emission term,

because it is there that the real/virtual cancellation takes place

dO

dX=

�

n|MB

n |2O(X; p1, . . . , pn)d�n

+�

n|MV

n |2O(X; p1, . . . , pn)d�n +�

n+1|MR

n+1|2O(X; p1, . . . , pn, pn+1)d�n+1


Non fully inclusive process (hadrons in initial state): non cancellation of collinear singularities in pQCD

Drell-Yan: factorisation

38

σphys = FbareFbareσdivergent(ε) = F(µ)F(µ)σ̂(µ)

The factorisation theorem

Same procedure used for renormalising the coupling: reabsorb the divergence into bare non-perturbative quantities, the parton

probabilities (collinear factorisation)

In pQCD (i.e. with gluon emissions), life becomes more complicated

short-distance cross section

infrared regulator

factorisationscale

and (schematically) F(µ) = Fbare✓1+αsP log

µ2

µ20

◆

This factor universal

Parton Distribution Function


Drell-Yan: NLO result

39

soft and collinear large log

A prototype of QCD calculations: many finite terms but, more importantly, a few characteristic large logarithms

In many circumstances and kinematical situations the logs are much more important than the finite terms: hence in pQCD resummations of these terms are often phenomenologically more relevant than a full higher order calculation

residual of collinear

factorisation


Cascade

40

Factorisation σphys = F(µ)σ̂(µ)

Evolutiond

d lnµ2lnσphys = 0 d ln σ̂(µ)

lnµ2=�d lnF(µ)

lnµ2=�αsP)

F(µ) = Fbare✓1+αsP log

µ2

µ20

◆

DGLAP evolution equations for PDF’s

ResummationSolution of evolution equations

resums higher order termsResponsible for scaling violations

(for instance in DIS structure functions)


DGLAP equations

41

q

[Dokshitzer, Gribov, Lipatov, Altarelli, Parisi]

The Altarelli-Parisi kernels control the evolution of the Parton Distribution Functions


Altarelli-Parisi kernels

42

[Altarelli-Parisi, 1977]

Higher orders: Curci-Furmansky-Petronzio (1980), Moch, Vermaseren, Vogt (2004)


DGLAP evolution of PDFs

43

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Q = 2 GeVQ = 10 GeVCTEQ6.6, up quark

xf(x)

x

large-x depletion

small-xincrease

Evolution (i.e. higher momentum scale) produces more partons at small momentum fraction (because they lose energy by radiating)

As for the coupling, one can’t predict PDF’s values in pQCD, but only their evolution


Take-home points

44

• universal character of soft/collinear emission

• both real and virtual diagrams usually contribute to an observable (and are both needed to cancel divergences)

• not everything is calculable. Restrict to IRC-safe observables and/or employ factorisation

QCD, Jets and Monte Carlo techniquesMatteo Cacciari

LPTHE Paris and Université Paris Diderot

2018 TAE SchoolSeptember 2018, Benasque

Lecture 1 - Basics of QCDLecture 2 - Higher orders and Monte CarlosLecture 3 - Jets


Ingredients and tools

46

‣PDFs

‣Hard scattering and shower

‣Final state tools


Tools for the hard scattering

47

Can be divided in

‣Integrators‣ evaluate the (differential) cross section by integrating the

calculation over the phase space, yielding (partly) inclusive quantities‣ Produce weighted events (the weight being the value of

the cross section)‣ Calculations exist at LO, NLO, NNLO

‣Generators‣ generate fully exclusive configurations‣ Events are unweighted (i.e. produced with the frequency

nature would produce them)‣ Easy at LO, get complicated when dealing with higher orders

Matteo Cacciari - LPTHE 2018 Taller de Altas Energías - Benasque 48

(Higher order) calculations

What goes into them ?


+X


Additional QCD emissions

Additional QCD loops

Additional αs powers

P

P3L

Process P exact at LO, nothing else

1

2

3

Exact

PS approx

Absent

P+1e2L

P+2e1L P+3e

P2L

P+1e1L

P+2e

P1L

P+1e

(NB. At the matrix element squared level)

52





P

P3L

Process P+1j exact at LO, nothing else

1

2

3

Exact

PS approx

Absent

P+2e1L P+3e

P2L

P+1e1L

P+2e

P1L

P+1e2L

P+1e

53





P

P3L

Process P exact at NLO, P+1j exact at LO, nothing else

1

2

3

Exact

PS approx

Absent

P2L

P1L

The “NLO triangle”(for P+X)

P+1e2L

P+1e1L

P+2e1L P+3e

P+2e

P+1e

54





P

P3L

Process P exact at NLO, P+1j exact at LO, nothing else

1

2

3

Exact

PS approx

Absent

P2L

P1L

The “NLO triangle”(for P+X)

Cancellation of divergences

P+1e2L

P+1e1L

P+2e1L P+3e

P+2e

P+1e

55





P

P3L

Process P and P+1j exact at NLO, P+2j at LO

1

2

3

Exact

PS approx

Absent

P2L

P1L The “NLO triangle”

(for P+1j)

P+1e2L

P+1e1L

P+2e1L P+3e

P+2e

P+1e

56





P

P3L

Process P exact at NNLO, P+1j exact at NLO, P+2j at LO

1

2

3

Exact

PS approx

Absent P1L The “NLO triangle”

(for P+1j)

P2L

The “NNLO triangle” (for P+X)

P+1e2L

P+1e1L

P+2e1L P+3e

P+2e

P+1e

57





P

P3L

Process P exact at NNLO, P+1j exact at NLO, P+2j at LO

1

2

3

Exact

PS approx

Absent P1L The “NLO triangle”

(for P+1j)

P2L

P+1e2L

P+1e1L

P+2e1L P+3e

P+2e

P+1e

Interferences and squares down the “equal final state” lines

58

The “NNLO triangle” (for P+X)


Fixed order calculation

59

Born

d�Born = B(�B)d�B

d�NLO = [B(�B) + V (�B)] d�B + R(�R)d�R

NLO

d�R = d�B d�rad

d�rad = d cos � dE d⇥Problem:

V(ΦB) and ∫RdΦR are divergent


Subtraction terms

60

An observable O is infrared and collinear safe if

One can then write, with C→R in the soft/coll limit,This integration

performed analytically

Separately finite

This (or a similar) cancellation will always be implicit in all subsequent equations

Soft or collinear limit

�O⇥ =⇤ �

B(�B) + V (�B) +⇤

C(�R)d�rad

⇥O(�B)d�B

+ [R(�R)O(�R)� C(�R)O(�B)] d�R


Parton Shower Monte Carlo

61

�n �n+1Factorisation

Emission probability

Exploit factorisation property of soft and collinear radiation

Iterate emissions to generate higher orders (in the soft/collinear approximation)


Parton Shower MC

62

Based on the iterative emission of radiation described in the soft-collinear limit

Pros: soft-collinear radiation is resummed to all orders in pQCD

Cons: hard large-angle radiation is missing

Overall accuracy will be leading log (LL) for the radiation, and leading order (i.e. Born) for the integrated cross sections

d�(MC)(�R)d�R = B(�B)d�BP(�rad)d�rad


Sudakov form factor

63

A key ingredient of a parton shower Monte Carlo:

Sudakov form factor Δ(t1,t2)

Probability of no emission between the scales t1 and t2

Example: - decay probability per unit time of a nucleus = cN

- Sudakov form factor Δ(t0,t) = exp(-cN(t-t0))Probability that nucleus does not decay between t0 and t


Sudakov form factor: derivation

64

Decay probability per unit time = dP

dt= cN

Probability of no decay between t0 and t = Δ(t0,t) [with Δ(t0,t0) = 1]

⇒ Probability of decay between t0 and t = 1- Δ(t0,t)

Decay probability per unit time at time t can be written in two ways:

1.

2. No decay until t, probability per unit time to decay at t

P dec(t) =d

dt

�1��(t0, t)

�= �d�(t0, t)

dt

P dec(t) = �(t0, t)dP

dt

[unitarity: either you decay or you don’t]


Sudakov form factor: derivation

65

Equating the two expressions for Pdec(t) we get

�d�(t0, t)dt

= �(t0, t)dP

dtWe can solve the differential equation using dP/dt = cN and we get

Δ(t0,t) = exp(-cN(t-t0))

If the decay probability depends on t (and possibly other variables, call them z) this generalises to

�(t0, t) = exp��

� t

t0

dt��

dz cN (t�, z)�


Sudakov form factor in QCD

66

Sudakov form factor = probability of no emission from large scale q1 to smaller scale q2

Emission probability


Conventions for Sudakov form factor

67

Full expression,with details of soft-collinear radiation probability

Dropped upper limit, taken implicitly to be the hard scale Q

�R(pT ) = exp��

⇤R

B⇥(kT (⇤R)� pT )d⇤rad

⇥Introduced suffix (R in this case) to indicate expression used to

described radiation


⇤

pT

R

Bd⇥rad

⇥Integration boundaries only

implicitly indicated


PS example: Higgs plus radiation

68

Leading order.No radiation, Higgs pT = 0

With emission of radiationHiggs pT ≠ 0

Description of hardest emission in PS MC (either event is generated)

x-sect for no emission

prob. ofno emission

(down to the PS cutoff)

prob. ofno emissiondown to pT

x-sect for emission at pT,

as described by the MC

Sudakov form factor

H

H

g


Toy shower for the Higgs pT

69

Gavin Salam has made public a ‘toy shower’ that generates the Higgs transverse momentm via successive emissions

controlled by the Sudakov form factor

You can get the code at https://github.com/gavinsalam/zuoz2016-toy-shower

�(pT ) =

NB. In order to get more realistic results you need at least at the code in v2


Shower unitarity

70

It holds

so that

A parton shower MC correctly reproduces the Born cross section for integrated quantities

Shower unitarity


PS MC in different notation

71

Writing the real cross section as described by the Monte Carlo (i.e. with the parton shower) simply as RMC, we can rewrite

as our Master Formula for a Parton Shower Monte Carlo.

Thanks to the shower unitarity, it holds

��

d�MC =�

Bd�B = �LO

with �MC(pT ) = exp��

⇤

pT

RMC

Bd⇥rad

⇥

d�MC = Bd⇥B

��MC(Q0) + �MC(pT )

RMC

Bd⇥rad

⇥


Matrix Element corrections

72

In a PS Monte Carlo R(MC)(�R) = B(�B)P(�rad)

Replace the MC description of radiation with the correct one:

The Sudakov becomes


⇤R

B⇥(kT (⇤R)� pT )d⇤rad

⇥�and the x-sect formula for the hardest emission

d�MEC = Bd⇥B

��R(Q0) + �R(pT )

R

Bd⇥rad

⇥

soft-collinear approximation

P(�rad)�R

B


Matrix Element corrections

73

Hard radiation: full real corrections

dominate

Soft radiation: Sudakov

dominates(and eliminates the divergence of NLO)


Beyond PS MC

74

We wish to go beyond a Parton Shower (+MEC) Monte Carlo, so that

‣we can successfully interface matrix elements for multi-parton production with a parton shower

‣we can successfully interface a parton shower with a NLO calculation

It’s a quest for exactness of ever more complex processes





P

P1L

P2L

P3L

Process P exact at LO, the rest PS approximation

1

2

3

Exact

PS approx

Absent

P+1e2L

P+1e1L

P+2e1L P+3e

P+2e

P+1e

75





P

P1L

P2L

P3L

Process P and P+1j exact at LO, the rest PS approximation

1

2

3

Exact

PS approx

Absent

[PS+MEC or PS from ME for P+1e]

P+1e2L

P+1e1L

P+2e1L P+3e

P+2e

P+1e

76





P

P1L

P2L

P3L

Process P, P+1j, P+2j, ... exact at LO, the rest PS approx.

1

2

3

Exact

PS approx

Absent

[PS+Matrix Element (CKKW, MLM,....)]

P+1e2L

P+1e1L

P+2e1L P+3e

P+2e

P+1e

77





P

P2L

P3L

Process P exact at NLO, the rest PS approximation

1

2

3

Exact

PS approx

Absent

[PS+NLO (MC@NLO, POWHEG,...)]

P1L

P+1e2L

P+1e1L

P+2e1L P+3e

P+2e

P+1e

78





P

P2L

P3L

Process P exact at NLO, P+1j, P+2j,... at LO, the rest PS

1

2

3

Exact

PS approx

Absent

[PS+NLO+ME (MENLOPS,...)]

P1L

P+1e2L

P+1e1L

P+2e1L P+3e

P+2e

P+1e

[Hamilton, Nason ’10]

79





P

P2L

P3L

Process P, P+1j, P+2j,... exact at NLO, the rest PS

1

2

3

Exact

PS approx

Absent

[PS+NLO+MENLO (MEPS@NLO,...)]

P1L

P+1e2L

P+1e1L

P+2e1L P+3e

P+2e

P+1e

80


MCs at NLO

81

Existing ‘MonteCarlos at NLO’:

‣MC@NLO [Frixione and Webber, 2002]

‣POWHEG [Nason, 2004]

NB. MC@NLO is a code, POWHEG is a method

‣The POWHEG BOX [powhegbox.mib.infn.it 2010]

‣aMC@NLO [amcatnlo.cern.ch 2011]

Evolving into (semi)automated forms:


MCs at NLO

82

Matrix-element corrected shower Monte Carlos still have leading order accuracy for the total rates

d�MEC = Bd⇥B

��R(Q0) + �R(pT )

R

Bd⇥rad

⇥and �R(Q0) +

��R(pT )

R

Bd⇥rad = 1

We want to do better, and merge PS and NLO, so that�

d�PS+NLO =�

(B + V )d�B +�

Rd�R = �NLO

��

d�MEC =�

Bd�B = �LO


MC@NLO

83

d�MC@NLO = B̄MCd⇥B

��MC(Q0) + �MC(pT )

RMC

Bd⇥rad

⇥+ [R�RMC ]d⇥R

B̄MC = B +�V +

⇤RMCd�rad

⇥

Idea: remove from the NLO the terms that are already generated by the parton shower (NB. MC-specific)

�d�MC@NLO =

�d�NLO

It is easy to see that, as desired,

‘soft’ event MC shower ‘hard’ event


POWHEG

84

Idea: generated hardest radiation first, then pass event to MC for generation of subsequent, softer radiation

It is easy to see that, as desired,

MC showerNLO x-sect

d�POWHEG = B̄d⇥B

��R(Q0) + �R(pT )

R

Bd⇥rad

⇥

B̄ = B +�V +

⇤R d�rad

⇥

�d�POWHEG =

�d�NLO


Large pT enhancement in POWHEG

85

d�POWHEG = B̄d⇥B

��R(Q0) + �R(pT )

R

Bd⇥rad

⇥The ‘naive’ formulation for POWHEG is

In this form provides the NLO K-factor (order 1+ O(αs)) , but also associates it to large pT radiation, where the calculation is

already O(αs) (but only LO accuracy).

B̄d�B

OK because beyond nominal accuracy, but one may feel uncomfortable with such large numerical factors

This generates an effective (but not necessarily correct) O(αs2) term (i.e. NNLO for the total cross section)


Modified POWHEG

86

�S(pT ) = exp��

⇤

pT

RS

Bd⇥rad

⇥

The ‘problem’ with the naive POWHEG comes from the hard radiation being enhanced by spurious higher orders. In order to suppress this effect, we split

RS � h2

h2 + p2T

R RF � p2T

h2 + p2T

RR = RS + RF

Regular in small pT region

Contains singularities

B̄S = B +�V +

⇤RS d�rad

⇥

d�POWHEG = B̄Sd⇥B

��S(Q0) + �S(pT )

RS

Bd⇥rad

⇥+ RF d⇥R


Modified POWHEG

87

In the h→∞ limit the exact NLO result is recovered


Comparisons

88

d�MC@NLO = B̄MCd⇥B

��MC(Q0) + �MC(pT )

RMC

Bd⇥rad

⇥+ [R�RMC ]d⇥R

d�MEC = Bd⇥B

��R(Q0) + �R(pT )

R

Bd⇥rad

⇥

d�MC = Bd⇥B

��(Q0) + �(pT )

RMC

Bd⇥rad

⇥

POWHEG approaches MC@NLO if RS → RMC

d�NLO = [B + V ] d�B + Rd�R

d�POWHEG = B̄Sd⇥B

��S(Q0) + �S(pT )

RS

Bd⇥rad

⇥+ RF d⇥R


Take home messages

89

Monte Carlos in QCD are complicated. I only scratched the surface here and gave almost no details. If interested, check lectures of real MC people (Sjostrand, Skands, Nason, Maltoni, Frixione, Krauss, Richardson, Webber,.....)

Monte Carlos exploit property of universality of soft/collinear radiation to resum its effects to all orders (within some approximations)

Effects of multi-parton, hard, large-angle radiation can be included via exact calculations and proper (and delicate) mergings

The result is a detailed description of the final state, covering as much phase space as possible. Accurate descriptions of data are usually achieved

qcd, jets and monte carlo techniquesbenasque.org/2018tae/talks_contr/104_lectures-1-and-2.pdf ·...

Documents